›

Howdy, Stranger!

It looks like you're new here. If you want to get involved, click one of these buttons!

Sign In Register

Quick Links

One Studio Would Have Earned +$350k If Its Game Could Have Launched on Epic - MMORPG.com News

SBFordSBFord Former Associate EditorMember LegendaryPosts: 33,129
edited December 2018 in News & Features Discussion

imageOne Studio Would Have Earned +$350k If Its Game Could Have Launched on Epic - MMORPG.com News

One of the big features of the new Epic Store is that it promises developers it will take a significantly smaller chunk of change from game sales profits. Currently, Epic takes 12% for distributing games rather than the 30% that Steam currently does. According to Bulkhead Interactive CEO Joe Brammer, his studio's game, Battalion 1944, would have seen the company earn an additional $350,000 if it could have launched on Epic instead of Steam.

Read the full story here



¯\_(ツ)_/¯ 


Bananable
«13456

Comments

  • SBFordSBFord Former Associate EditorMember LegendaryPosts: 33,129
    That's a significant chunk of change...


    ¯\_(ツ)_/¯ 


  • cheyanecheyane Member LegendaryPosts: 9,404
    Yes indeed 30% is greedy.
    SBFordScotRexKushmanArskaaaMikehaMadFrenchiePanther2103Grunt350kitarad
    Garrus Signature
  • BloodaxesBloodaxes Member EpicPosts: 4,662
    Well, that's largely speculation.

    Some people want all their games organised in a single application. They might have had less people buying it if they went for the epic client.
    WaanNephethCaffynatedjimmywolfXingbairongDhamon99[Deleted User]EponyxDamorThaharDakeruand 11 others.

  • SBFordSBFord Former Associate EditorMember LegendaryPosts: 33,129
    edited December 2018
    Bloodaxes said:
    Well, that's largely speculation.

    Some people want all their games organised in a single application. They might have had less people buying it if they went for the epic client.
    I don't think what he wrote is speculating on how many copies it would have sold on Epic, but more to illustrate how big a difference there is between 12% of revenue taken for distribution over 30%. It's more than double and to a small studio, that can be massive.

    At this rate, more and more new games -- heck, maybe even "old" games -- will shift to Epic. 

    I wonder if games that are currently on Steam will remain there even if devs decide to publish on Epic for newer games? I can't imagine current Steam games suddenly moving to Epic -- I mean, what would happen to player data (progression, characters, purchases, etc.)?


    ¯\_(ツ)_/¯ 


  • AlexanderVendiAlexanderVendi Member UncommonPosts: 378
    30% is not that greedy , how many games have you actually bought through steam in the past 2-3 years? i got a ton of games on steam but i don't know if i made more then 3-5 purchases directly from steam since you can get most of the games for half the price they are listing them on from legit websites.
  • BloodaxesBloodaxes Member EpicPosts: 4,662
    SBFord said:
    Bloodaxes said:
    Well, that's largely speculation.

    Some people want all their games organised in a single application. They might have had less people buying it if they went for the epic client.
    I don't think what he wrote is speculating on how many copies it would have sold on Epic, but more to illustrate how big a difference there is between 12% of revenue taken for distribution over 30%. It's more than double and to a small studio, that can be massive.

    At this rate, more and more new games -- heck, maybe even "old" games -- will shift to Epic. 

    I wonder if games that are currently on Steam will remain there even if devs decide to publish on Epic for newer games? I can't imagine current Steam games suddenly moving to Epic -- I mean, what would happen to player data (progression, characters, purchases, etc.)?
    That's obviously true. However, epic being newer it might make buyers reluctant on buying from another application. Steam's popularity might make people buy it more which would result in that difference in revenue being insignificant.

    This is still too early to tell. Epic is not the first company, and won't be the last trying to overtake steam. 
    Dhamon99[Deleted User]

  • joezhudarakjoezhudarak Member UncommonPosts: 32
    edited December 2018
    Better 30% selling millions than 12% for hundreds...players don't want another launcher.
    [Deleted User]ScotNephethCaffynatedArskaaaXingbairongJeffSpicoliDhamon99XarkoEponyxDamorand 6 others.
  • SBFordSBFord Former Associate EditorMember LegendaryPosts: 33,129
    joezhudarak said:
    Better 30% selling millions than 12% for hundreds...players don't want another launcher.
    Players didn't want an all-in-one digital launcher a decade ago either. They wanted to keep buying physical discs. 

    Life evolves. Games -- even game launchers -- follow suit.
    ConstantineMerusMikehaWhiteLanterngervaise1GruntyValdheiminfomatz[Deleted User]


    ¯\_(ツ)_/¯ 


  • ConstantineMerusConstantineMerus Member EpicPosts: 3,338
    Better 30% selling millions than 12% for hundreds...players don't want another launcher.
    Players might skip a couple of titles they'd really like to play to avoid getting a launcher but not when more and more decide to migrate over. 

    Generally speaking, players would buy a whole new platform to play a game, let alone to install a free application. 
    SBFordLokeroKyleran
    Constantine, The Console Poster

    • "One of the most difficult tasks men can perform, however much others may despise it, is the invention of good games and it cannot be done by men out of touch with their instinctive selves." - Carl Jung
  • cheyanecheyane Member LegendaryPosts: 9,404
    It's amazing how many times  we change our minds about something. There is no finality. You might say now no ,but for me I prefer seeing the money go to the makes of the game the 18% and not Steam. That's why I  buy games and support GoG. 
    SBFordConstantineMeruskitaradYaevinduskTacticalZombeh
    Garrus Signature
  • SBFordSBFord Former Associate EditorMember LegendaryPosts: 33,129
    Competition in any market is good for consumers. Like @cheyane I want to see more money go to devs and less to distributors.
    TacticalZombeh


    ¯\_(ツ)_/¯ 


  • ScotScot Member LegendaryPosts: 24,439
    I value competition, there isn't much here and that's why Steam are taking 30%.
    LokeroSBFordConstantineMerusDhamon99Thahar
  • AlexanderVendiAlexanderVendi Member UncommonPosts: 378
    parrotpholk said:
    joezhudarak said:
    Better 30% selling millions than 12% for hundreds...players don't want another launcher.
    According to whom?  Competition is good and if games start launching on Epic over Steam then players will go there and it will not simply be hundreds.  Have we become so lazy that double clicking has become a chore?
    Beeeeeh beeeeeeh beeeeeeeehehehe
    Rennd
  • LililuneLililune Member UncommonPosts: 81
    edited December 2018
    I don't like the "no player review" of Epic...
    And for now,games from the Epic store are bleh...
    Ashen looks empty of everything and without old good save slots everywhere.
    The Hades thing...SuperGiant Games... I never finished their games...It's for their fans,I suppose.
    Sorry,I keep Steam and GOG ^^
    Dhamon99
  • BloodaxesBloodaxes Member EpicPosts: 4,662
    Well I can understand why people are reluctant to changes in this scenario.

    With a single client, one can see what all their friends are playing. Enabling you to an easy chatting, grouping and so on without having to open multiple clients. More distributors continue to have their own version, the population gets divided. I'd prefer going back to the old days where I had to not open any launcher. All my games being in the desktop. Using xfire to see what my friends are playing.. Heh, time sure flies.

    If it wasn't for discord, I wouldn't even know what half my friends are playing since they're playing games not on steam.

  • MaxBaconMaxBacon Member LegendaryPosts: 7,846
    Steam is no longer the center of the universe for gaming, with more self-published offer and other platforms, even Discord and Twitch, it gets obvious Valve will have to sweeten up the deal because the weather seems to be changing from raining money.

    The core change already shows with big titles preferring to avoid steam.
    SBFord
  • RexKushmanRexKushman Member RarePosts: 639
    I don't personally care how much money a dev gets off of my purchase. I keep all my games in 1 place, Steam, unless it is an exclusive that isn't listed there. My concerns are over accessibility, ease of use and convenience... Steam hits those points better than any other distributor.

    If Devs want more money in their pockets maybe they should focus on making better games and increasing their sales.

  • LokeroLokero Member RarePosts: 1,514
    SBFord said:
    Bloodaxes said:
    Well, that's largely speculation.

    Some people want all their games organised in a single application. They might have had less people buying it if they went for the epic client.
    I don't think what he wrote is speculating on how many copies it would have sold on Epic, but more to illustrate how big a difference there is between 12% of revenue taken for distribution over 30%. It's more than double and to a small studio, that can be massive.

    At this rate, more and more new games -- heck, maybe even "old" games -- will shift to Epic. 

    I wonder if games that are currently on Steam will remain there even if devs decide to publish on Epic for newer games? I can't imagine current Steam games suddenly moving to Epic -- I mean, what would happen to player data (progression, characters, purchases, etc.)?
    I think the "too many" launchers population is going to be a very small minority of holdouts.  Unless you are one of those people who only ever uses Steam, it's a silly argument, since we already have like 10 different launchers out there.
    ---------------------

    As for migration of current Steam games:
    There are some peculiar factors to consider. 

    First, Steam's got a policy for publishers that if you launch in multiple places, those other places can't get a better deal than the Steam customers.  This really shouldn't be an issue, though, unless a particular game jacked their Steam price way up to account for the 30% and then wants to undercut it on Epic, etc.

    Second, like you mentioned, migrating data and such would be a real pita, I'd imagine.  Plus, you'd upset a lot of already-customers by trying to detour the consumer base like that.

    So, you aren't going to see "lower" prices on Epic for a game already on Steam.  And, a game can't possibly abandon Steam if they are already on there(at least, not without pissing off lots of people).

    The only real possibility is to have your game in both places at the same price(or higher on Epic).

    Bit of a derail, but ---
    We've seen through GOG already that this will most likely fracture any multiplayer community, as well (akin to the PSN and Xbox Live situation).
    Unless Epic were to come to terms with Steam(yeah, right), we are looking at yet another multiplayer network/achievements fracture.

    It would be a fairly brilliant executive decision, imho, for Epic to have a pow-wow with GOG and find a way to bridge the gap for their achievements, multiplayer, etc., to be compatible.

    A semi-collaboration between GOG and EGS, for even basic compatibility, could make for a really powerful alliance to rival Steam's isolated userbase.
  • ananitananit Member RarePosts: 293
    edited December 2018
    how much would they have lost in advertisement though ?
    it's amazing to have a smaller cut for devs but if nobody sees your game or knows about it, you will have to spend a lot of money on ads, which a lot of smaller devs seem to not understand.
    this is what valve offers among other things, advertisement and exposure through the client that is used by millions of users.
    in the case of battalion, if it wasn't for steam i would never have heard about it. it still didn't convince me to buy it because thanks to the steam reviews, i dodged what appears to be an unpolished buggy mess.

    at the end of the day, people want to pay less for their games. that's all there is to it.
    if it means using a second launcher to get 15% off from new games purchases then people will move on from steam. and if it means using a dodgy site to pay 1 euro instead of 20 then so be it.
    that was the whole idea behind digital medias when it was advertised back in the days but we got swindled and we still pay box price for digital games and we don't even fully own them !
    so unless epic manages to cut down prices for new games, i will not use their platform and i doubt many will.
    jimmywolfDhamon99ThaharFacelessSavior
  • ET3DET3D Member UncommonPosts: 330
    So that game made 2 million. Nice.
  • vegetableoilvegetableoil Member RarePosts: 768
    well it is a significant amount but only assuming that people who bought it at steam would also move and bought it at epic, which is completely false assumption. if epic has the same amount of costumer as steam then we are comparing apple to apple, but we are not. They also have different marketing strategy which means people might not buy the product or vice versa. but yeah 12% compare to 30% is a lot, but volumes might speak differently. a 12% of $1000 is $120 but making $880, while a 30% of $10000 is $3000 but making $7000, so the sales could be completely different.
  • alkarionlogalkarionlog Member EpicPosts: 3,584

    SBFord said:


    Bloodaxes said:

    Well, that's largely speculation.

    Some people want all their games organised in a single application. They might have had less people buying it if they went for the epic client.


    I don't think what he wrote is speculating on how many copies it would have sold on Epic, but more to illustrate how big a difference there is between 12% of revenue taken for distribution over 30%. It's more than double and to a small studio, that can be massive.

    At this rate, more and more new games -- heck, maybe even "old" games -- will shift to Epic. 

    I wonder if games that are currently on Steam will remain there even if devs decide to publish on Epic for newer games? I can't imagine current Steam games suddenly moving to Epic -- I mean, what would happen to player data (progression, characters, purchases, etc.)?



    it is speculation, he said if he sold the same number of copies on epic he sld on steam he would ahve that much, but he are only thinking on IF he only launched on epic and IF the same number of people would buy there, if you want to be smart about it, like I said before, if they will want to have more people on epic they should make the games a little cheaper on epic, they get a bigger cut and we get a discount, but for the look of it, some people are too dumb to do that and would charge the same
    joezhudarak
    FOR HONOR, FOR FREEDOM.... and for some money.
  • ForgrimmForgrimm Member EpicPosts: 3,069
    Says the guy charging money for an early access game that has an overall positive rating of 51%...
    RexKushman[Deleted User]EponyxDamorThahar
  • 6stack_Chris6stack_Chris Member UncommonPosts: 118
    I keep seeing people say they will not purchase a game from another launcher, and honestly I'm calling BS. Once the next new title comes, player will use what ever means they can to get that title. If Star Wars Galaxies suddenly came back, but wasn't supported by Daybreak, and the development studio decided to launch using Epic, they would have no problem at all pulling in people by the masses.

    Some of you need to stop being so petty with stuff, enjoy life and the small things sometimes.
    LokeroKyleran
  • ThaneThane Member EpicPosts: 3,534
    well, epic ain't valve, the userbase would have been way smaller, so that whole math thingie, doesn't actually sum up... it's theory
    obii

    "I'll never grow up, never grow up, never grow up! Not me!"

Sign In or Register to comment.